Tax Weekly Round-Up: December 08 - December 14, 2025

SUPREME COURTIncome Tax | Statutory Corporation Can Claim Deduction Under S 36(1)(viii) Only For Income Directly Derived From Long-Term Finance : Supreme CourtCause Title: NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXThe Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) held that any income earned by a statutory corporation outside its core activity of providing long-term finance for industrial, agricultural, or infrastructure development in India cannot qualify for the 40% deduction available under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”).A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed National Cooperation Development Corporation's appeal, reiterating that only profits directly derived from long-term financing activities, with repayment periods of five years or more for supporting the agricultural sector, are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCS.62 CGST Act | Filing Pending Returns Automatically Withdraws Best-Judgment Assessment: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Indubaala Enterprises LLP v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors.Case No: W.P. Nos. 31323, 31324 & 31330 of 2025The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stands deemed withdrawn once the registered dealer files the pending returns along with payment of tax and applicable late fee, even if such returns are filed beyond the initially prescribed period.A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the assessee, Indubaala Enterprises LLP, assailing multiple assessment orders on the ground of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.Bombay HCRevenue Cannot Adjudicate Decade-Old SCNs On NPV Sales Tax Retention: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Computer Graphics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.Case Nos.: Writ Petition Nos. 2052 & 2054 of 2025 (F)The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside two show cause notices issued to a manufacturer seeking to levy central excise duty on the differential amount of sales tax/VAT retained by it under a Net Present Value (NPV) incentive scheme, holding that the Revenue cannot be permitted to adjudicate stale notices after an unexplained and inordinate delay.A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan allowed the writ petitions filed by the assessee, quashing show cause notices, which were sought to be adjudicated after a lapse of nearly nine and eight years, respectively. The Bench stated that in any case, as we find that the determination of the show cause notices shall defeat its purpose, on account of lapse of time as it will pose difficulty for the Revenue as well as the Assessee to track the necessary material, which will be necessary for effective adjudication and hence, according to us, the show cause notices cannot be adjudicated and are liable to be quashed and set aside only on the ground of gross delay in not adjudicating them, despite lapse of period of 9 and 8 years respectively.Income Tax Act | No Addition U/S 153A Without Incriminating Material Found During Search: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) v. Milan Kavin ParikhCase No.: Income Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2022The Bombay High Court has held that no income addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless incriminating material is found during a search, even if the Revenue relies on information received from foreign authorities.A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, which had deleted additions of nearly ₹28 crore made against the assessee, Milan Kavin Parikh.GST Abolished Ad Tax, Doesn't Bar Municipal Licence Fees on Hoardings: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. And connected mattersCase Number: Writ Petition No. 10684 of 2018The Bombay High Court recently held that the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime does not take away the power of municipal corporations in Maharshtra to levy licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs. The court clarified that GST abolished only advertisement tax and not regulatory charges imposed under municipal law.A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna, made the observation while dismissing a large batch of petitions filed by outdoor advertising agencies, challenging the levy of licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs by the Pune Municipal Corporation.Income Tax Act | Gross Receipts Cannot Be Taxed As Income Without Deducting Expenses: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sindhi Vs Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune and Ors.Case No: Writ Petition No. 16464 of 2025The...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: December 08 - December 14, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags